0120123286
09-14-2012
Dennis W. Pittman, Complainant, v. Patrick R. Donahoe, Postmaster General, United States Postal Service (Western Area), Agency.
Dennis W. Pittman,
Complainant,
v.
Patrick R. Donahoe,
Postmaster General,
United States Postal Service
(Western Area),
Agency.
Appeal No. 0120123286
Agency No. 1E640000208
DECISION
Complainant filed a timely appeal with this Commission from a final decision (FAD) by the Agency dated November 8, 2010, finding that it was in compliance with the terms of the settlement agreement into which the parties entered. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.402; 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(b); and 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405.
BACKGROUND
At the time of events giving rise to this matter, Complainant worked at an Agency facility in Kansas City, Missouri.
Believing that the Agency subjected him to unlawful discrimination, Complainant contacted an Agency EEO Counselor to initiate the EEO complaint process. On November 2, 2007, Complainant and the Agency entered into a settlement agreement to resolve the matter. The settlement agreement provided, in pertinent part, that:
(1) Complainant agrees to provide [his representative] with two letters of request for lateral transfer by Friday, November 9, 2007. Upon receipt of the two letters from [the representative], [a named manager] agrees that he will help [Complainant] obtain a lateral transfer to a position that he is interested in, which is expressed in [Complainant's] two letters. If [the manager] and [Complainant] are unable to find a lateral transfer position for [Complainant] by December 15, 2007, they agree to schedule a meeting together.
By letter to the Agency dated October 14, 2010, Complainant alleged that the Agency was in breach of the settlement agreement, and requested that the Agency specifically implement its terms. Complainant alleged that the Agency failed to offer him a lateral transfer or have a meeting. Complainant stated that the breach occurred in January 2008.
In its November 8, 2010 FAD, the Agency concluded it was not in breach of the agreement. The Agency noted that Complainant was out of work on FMLA leave from November 2, 2007 to January 14, 2008. The manager referenced in the settlement agreement prepared an affidavit indicating that he arranged for Complainant to return from leave in January 2008 and report to the Kansas City NDC on a detail in hopes that he would gain experience if a position there became vacant. He began his detail assignment on January 14, 2008. When a position became vacant at the NDC, Complainant was assigned to a permanent position as a level 17 Supervisor of Maintenance Operations, with an effective date of March 1, 2008. The record also contains an email from an EEO specialist to the manager indicating she spoke to Complainant in January 2008 concerning his breach allegation. The EEO specialist indicated that Complainant stated that he had decided not to pursue his breach allegation based on the arrangement for the detail.
The instant appeal followed. On appeal, Complainant states he was 'hoodwinked' into accepting the position at the NDC, and that there is an "abuse of power" at the facility.
ANALYSIS
EEOC Regulation 29 C.F.R. � 1614.504(a) provides that any settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily agreed to by the parties, reached at any stage of the complaint process, shall be binding on both parties. The Commission has held that a settlement agreement constitutes a contract between the employee and the Agency, to which ordinary rules of contract construction apply. See Herrington v. Dep't of Def., EEOC Request No. 05960032 (December 9, 1996). The Commission has further held that it is the intent of the parties as expressed in the contract, not some unexpressed intention, that controls the contract's construction. Eggleston v. Dep't of Veterans Affairs, EEOC Request No. 05900795 (August 23, 1990). In ascertaining the intent of the parties with regard to the terms of a settlement agreement, the Commission has generally relied on the plain meaning rule. See Hyon O v. U.S. Postal Serv., EEOC Request No. 05910787 (December 2, 1991). This rule states that if the writing appears to be plain and unambiguous on its face, its meaning must be determined from the four corners of the instrument without resort to extrinsic evidence of any nature. See Montgomery Elevator Co. v. Building Eng'g Servs. Co., 730 F.2d 377 (5th Cir. 1984).
In the instant case, the Commission finds that the Agency has complied with the agreement. Complainant was out on FMLA leave until January 2008, so the Agency could not have placed him in the position or had a meeting with him by the dates set forth in the agreement. In January, a detail to the NDC was arranged for Complainant, which turned into a permanent position by March 2008. The record indicates that Complainant agreed to the permanent reassignment to the NDC supervisory position. Now, Complainant asserts he was 'hoodwinked' into accepting the position. However, there is nothing to suggest he was coerced into doing it. Based on these facts, we find that Complainant has not established that the Agency failed to comply with the terms of the settlement agreement.
Accordingly, the Agency's decision finding no breach is AFFIRMED.
STATEMENT OF RIGHTS - ON APPEAL
RECONSIDERATION (M0610)
The Commission may, in its discretion, reconsider the decision in this case if the Complainant or the Agency submits a written request containing arguments or evidence which tend to establish that:
1. The appellate decision involved a clearly erroneous interpretation of material fact or law; or
2. The appellate decision will have a substantial impact on the policies, practices, or operations of the Agency.
Requests to reconsider, with supporting statement or brief, must be filed with the Office of Federal Operations (OFO) within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of this decision or within twenty (20) calendar days of receipt of another party's timely request for reconsideration. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.405; Equal Employment Opportunity Management Directive for 29 C.F.R. Part 1614 (EEO MD-110), at 9-18 (November 9, 1999). All requests and arguments must be submitted to the Director, Office of Federal Operations, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013. In the absence of a legible postmark, the request to reconsider shall be deemed timely filed if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing period. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604. The request or opposition must also include proof of service on the other party.
Failure to file within the time period will result in dismissal of your request for reconsideration as untimely, unless extenuating circumstances prevented the timely filing of the request. Any supporting documentation must be submitted with your request for reconsideration. The Commission will consider requests for reconsideration filed after the deadline only in very limited circumstances. See 29 C.F.R. � 1614.604(c).
COMPLAINANT'S RIGHT TO FILE A CIVIL ACTION (S0610)
You have the right to file a civil action in an appropriate United States District Court within ninety (90) calendar days from the date that you receive this decision. If you file a civil action, you must name as the defendant in the complaint the person who is the official Agency head or department head, identifying that person by his or her full name and official title. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of your case in court. "Agency" or "department" means the national organization, and not the local office, facility or department in which you work. If you file a request to reconsider and also file a civil action, filing a civil action will terminate the administrative processing of your complaint.
RIGHT TO REQUEST COUNSEL (Z0610)
If you decide to file a civil action, and if you do not have or cannot afford the services of an attorney, you may request from the Court that the Court appoint an attorney to represent you and that the Court also permit you to file the action without payment of fees, costs, or other security. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C. � 2000e et seq.; the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended, 29 U.S.C. �� 791, 794(c). The grant or denial of the request is within the sole discretion of the Court. Filing a request for an attorney with the Court does not extend your time in which to file a civil action. Both the request and the civil action must be filed within the time limits as stated in the paragraph above ("Right to File a Civil Action").
FOR THE COMMISSION:
______________________________
Carlton M. Hadden, Director
Office of Federal Operations
September 14, 2012
__________________
Date
2
0120123286
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
Office of Federal Operations
P.O. Box 77960
Washington, DC 20013
2
0120123286